continues. .ost: and we are back to joining us is chris whipple, author of "gatekeepers: how the white house chief of staff defined every presidency." your book is out in paperback with a new chapter talking to the president's first chief of staff, reince priebus, and steve bannon. what did you learn? know, it's been the most dysfunctional white house in modern history, but it turns out it was a wild ride then we even imagined from the outside. when i sat down with reince priebus for the first time, he said off the record and the later i persuaded him to put it he said, "take- everything you heard and multiply it by 50." that will give you an idea of what it was like during the first six months of the trump white house. the chapter begins with a phone

call from president trump to his chief of staff a little after 6:00 a.m. on january 21. trump was livid, furious about the picture of his inauguration compared to obama's in "the washington post," demanding that previous fix it. he thought to himself, do i want to go to war with the president on day one? six months kind of for reince priebus. host: how did reince priebus prepare for the job? guest: well, you know, that's a good question. one of the things he did as he was invited to the white house by denis mcdonough, the outgoing white house chief of staff in december 2016. excuse me. 10 former white house chiefs came to the white house and gathered around the table to give him their best advice.

agreedl told him and all that he needed to be empowered to be effective as white house chief. of course, donald had no intention of empowering him as we found out. most of those chiefs came away feeling not very optimistic about his chances, feeling he had not prepared seriously. one former white house chief put it rather unkindly. he said rights previous had the attitude of a personal aide and cruise director. host: what did he mean by that? guest: he meant that reince priebus did not do any serious perforation for the job of white house chief of staff. it's an enormously important job and requires an extraordinary skill set. it requires a kind of infrastructure of deputy chiefs and things that you have to know in order to run the white house

well. in this former chiefs opinion, priebus had not done any of that preparation. priebus would argue that donald trump was a unique president. donald trump is who he is and he was going to run the white house like the 26th floor of trump tower. he was not going to empower anyone in the traditional way as white house chief. host: at that lunch with the former chief when rights previous was given advice -- reince priebus was given advice come he was also paid a visit by barack obama. what did the president tell him? guest: barack obama walked in the middle of this meeting. everybody stood up and he greeted them. obama looked up at his former chiefs who were all there. and said,to priebus you know, everyone of these guys told me things that pissed me off. they weren't always right and sometimes i was right.

that's the most important thing that a chief of staff can do. tell a president not what he wants to hear but needs to hear. i hope you will do that for president trump he said. and then he departed. over the next six months, i'm afraid that priebus did not really distinguish himself at speaking hard truce to donald trump. earlier said if i was donald trump's chief of staff i would've smashed his phone. i would've prevented him from tweeting. if that were to happen, the president's approval rating would be 80%. i don't know about that, but it is true that almost any chief of staff you talk to would tell you that tweeting has been destructive. keeping theway of administration off message come of, off balance.

in priebus's defense come he tried to take away trump's phone from him and even conspired with the secret service to take a phone away from him. turns out trump had another one. they had family interventions. lania tried to get him to give up his phone. he stopped tweeting for a few days and then went right back at it. it may be mission impossible to take away donald trump's twitter account. host: reince priebus was the chief of staff. the former chief told them you need to be number one. what was his relationship like with steve bannon? guest: you know, interestingly steve bannon and priebus got along pretty well. there are always factions as we now know within the white house. there's always introducing conflict. this one has really been like " game of thrones."

what happened is that the ivanka trump and jared kushner were troubled by steve bannon. they were not happy with him and wanted to push them out reportedly. bannon that priebus and formed a kind of alliance. i think they liked each other and i think they worked reasonably well together. host: what about the structure that was set up with steve bannon in that position and reince priebus as chief of staff? guest: it was really unworkable and it was really a kind of troika were maybe a three headed beast. you had reince priebus as chief of staff in title but not the authority really. you had steve bannon as the particle strategist and then jared kushner, who was family. authority was really divided among three of them. one of the things i learned from

my book is that every president finds out often the hard way that you cannot govern effectively without empowering a chief of staff as first among equals to execute your agenda and most important to tell you what you don't want to hear. donald trump failed to do that during the first six months and he paid the price. history is littered with the wreckage of presidencies that did not get it that you have to do that in order to govern effectively. jimmy carter took 2.5 years to appear about. bill clinton took a year and a half before empowering leon panetta to get the job done. it was a non-workable structure and it was the most dysfunctional white house in modern history. host: chris whipple here to attac take your questions and comments about the role of chief of staff in the white house. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

an independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also join us on twitter or go to facebook.com/c-span. want to take your questions on your thoughts about the current chief of staff and the role of chiefs of staff inside the white house. wasre we get to calls, what reince priebus's demise? how was he treated at the end? know, he wasyou really subjected to a lot of ritual humiliation as you may recall during this for six months. -- those first six months. donald trump seems to be able to sense weakness and take it manage of it. there was that famous incident where he was reportedly asked to come in and swat a fly. he was not treated with the but

most respect and his end came very abruptly. priebus submitted his resignation after anthony scaramucci, the short-lived communications director, insulted him. basically accused him of leaking confidential information. when i was accused of a felony, i basically said i've had it. he went to donald trump and said he was resigning. he hoped it would be a graceful , as, but shortly thereafter air force one sat on the tarmac at andrews air force base and rain, you may recall that donald trump tweeted that reince priebus was out in general john kelly was in. host: ian in oceanside, new york. you up first. caller: i would like to touch on general john kelly sitting there.

he still carries 63% or maybe even more. we're going to sit down with north korea. if it doesn't work out, at least it's a first step. general kelly when asked questions from the press, he said you people dedicate your question straight. general kelly said this guy is right on point and doing fine. now 62% of the conservative things he push for within his first year, even with the fbi the militarized just like barack did with the blm going after people like cliven bundy and the irs, which cliven bundy was let go and the irs had to pay out, weaponize everything. we are learning everything now and everything's saying don't tweet. tweeting is new technology. guest: is this a question or a speech by the way? caller: question or a speech? i'mld the spring call that a united states marine coast

guard captain. host: general kelly said to the press he is doing fine. look, this is been the most dysfunctional white house in modern history. for a year it has been a broken white house that has been unable to do anything right. first of all, he was unable to pass legislation. he couldn't issue executive orders that were enforceable. they were blocked in the courts as you know. they cannot prioritize the president's agenda. nobody knows what it is. they can't get anybody on the same page. the only way tax reform got through was keeping donald trump 100 miles away from it. i think that by any measure, this white house has been the most dysfunctional, least accomplished in modern history. donald trump is not the first president to come in to office full of hubris, thinking he had all the answers. most presidents get over that.

most presidents figure out that there's a difference between campaigning, demonizing, and divided, and governing. donald trump still has a figure that out and i'm afraid general kelly has reinforced all of his worst partisan instincts. i think a lot of people expected more from general kelly frankly. host: larry in petersburg, illinois, independent. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. whipple. makei would just like to a comment. it seems that you are looking at this from a negative point of view and i would just like to let you know that people out here -- i know it's turned flyover states -- we elected president trump because we knew he would be different. we overlook some of his things that we might consider negative, but we're looking at results.

and today is a very historic moment if you look at what happened yesterday. we have got a long way to go on this, but there's another point of view on this. host: are you referring to tariffs or that he's going to meet with -- caller: i think the terrorists is going to be worked out in a good way, but this is with north korea. it's a historic moment. host: let's take that point. guest: we will see about that. if you read my book -- i don't know if you have read my book, but if you do, i think you will see that i tried to be very evenhanded and an honest chronicler of how chiefs of staff have performed over history, whether they are republicans or democrats. i would cite james a baker the third, a republican, as a gold standard among white house chiefs.

leon panetta was perhaps a close second in terms of effectiveness. what i'm talking about here is not whether you like donald trump or not. i'm looking at results and i'm looking at the white house chief and his ability to perform and deliver. , ii were for donald trump would be disappointed and sometimes furious about the fact that this white house has been so dysfunctional and so unable to deliver any results. i think the reality is by any measure, if you look at the record of this white house over the first year, it really was unable to get anything accomplished unless you consider ripping up executive orders and abolishing regulations and getting a justice on the supreme court. if you consider that great governance, so be it, but i think by every other measure, this white house has really been a failure. host: mr. whipple, what made

james baker and leon panetta the gold standard? guys: well, these are two -- jim baker to begin with was a guy who was as smooth as silk texas lawyer who is comfortable and his own skin. he was confident and not only new capitol hill and how deliver votes, but he understood the white house. at the end of the day, he was a guy who could walk into the oval office, close the door, and tell ronald reagan what he didn't want to hear. same thing with leon panetta and bill clinton. that's the most important thing a chief can do. to give you a quick example, reagan was determined right out of the gate to tackle social security reform. arounder, who had been the block and was politically savvy, told him, listen. social security reform is the third rail of american politics. you touch it and you will be electrocuted. let's try something else.

reagan pivoted to tax cuts and the economy. and the rest is history. there would have been no reagan revolution without somebody like jim baker being able to speak archers to ronald reagan. -- hard truths to ronald reagan. i see no evidence that that is happening in this white house and quite frankly john kelly is out of his depth politically. host: how do they run the white house on a daily basis versus how it's being run now? guest: well, you know, in a functioning white house that's firing on every cylinder, everything flows from an empowered white house chief of staff who executes the president's agenda. you cannot overestimate how important the job is. he's not only famously the gatekeeper who creates time and space for the president to think. he's also the honest broker of information who makes sure that every decision is teed up with accurate information on every side and will also make sure that only the toughest decisions get into the oval office.

he is in charge of key medications and making sure that -- communication and making sure that everyone is on the same page. he's a so-called heatshield taking all the flak aimed at the present. executed person who the president's agenda and the person who tells them what he does not want to hear. and a functioning white house, that translates into results. host: david your next in las vegas, a democrat. i feel that the chief of staff is just like the president. they will be flip-flopping on every issue. to me, it don't make sense. host: what do you mean, david? thing, well, for one daca. tosident trump was ready , but the chief of

staff had a talk with him and trump changed his mind. host: got your point. guest: this is part of my point about john kelly and it's been one of his real weaknesses. it seems to me that he has failed by even the very narrow definition of the job, his own definition of it, which was not to manage the president but to make the west wing trains run on time. we have seen the trains off the track with rob porter and security clearances and all the chaos, but more importantly to point, iur caller's really think that john kelly has reinforced donald trump's worst partisan instincts. and the remarks about daca were a perfect example of that. another example is when john kelly walked up to the podium and the white house press briefing room and told a false story about representative wilson.

partisanshipind of that you don't really want to see from your white house chief. house chief is supposed to be the honest broker and supposed to be above the political fray. he is supposed to be the person who executes the president's agenda. even really partisan characters like dick cheney and rahm emanuel, when they were white house chiefs, they were honest brokers. they were not people who threw their weight around ideologically in that role. tot: chris whipple, i want show your viewers and get reaction from the president during a news conference earlier this week asked about personal changes at the white house. this is how he responded. [video clip] >> the white house has tremendous energy, tremendous spirit. it's a great place to be working. many people want every single job. be don't want may to work for trump, but believe me, everyone wants to work in the white house. they all want a piece of that oval office.

they want a piece of the west terms of itly in looks great on the resume, but it's a great place to work. it's got tremendous energy. it's tough. i like conflict. i like having two people with different points of view and i certainly have that. and then i make a decision. i like watching it and i like seeing it and i think it's the best way to go. i like different points of view, but the white house has tremendous energy and sherman's talent. there will be people -- i'm not going to be specific, but the change. sometimes they want to go out and do something else. but they all want to be in the white house. i have a choice of anybody. i can take any position in the white house and i will have a choice of the 10 top people having to do with that position. everybody wants to be there. and they love this white house because we have energy like really before. -- rarely before. host: what do you make of the president there? guest: you have to agree with

what you said about energy. there's a lot of energy and averting belding -- and a in a burning building or a nuclear meltdown. this white house is in a freefall and we have never seen anything like this chaos and dysfunction. the trouble is that the only model that trump knows is the 26th floor of trump tower. you cannot run the white house that way you run a manhattan family real estate firm with people coming and going and nobody empowered and no chain of command. as i said before, history is littered with the wreckage of presidencies that did not understand that. donald trump has not figured this out. until he does, he will not be able to govern effectively. let's take an example. jimmy carter and ronald reagan. jimmy carter was arguably the smartest person elected in the 20th century, trained as a nuclear engineer. ronald reagan, not so much, right?

but reagan understood something that jimmy carter never grasped and that john donald trump -- donald trump has yet to grasp. an outsider president above all needs a consummate insider like jim baker, who was the chief of staff that reagan had, who knows capitol hill but also is comfortable telling the president hard truths. until donald trump figures that out, he will not be able to govern effectively in my view. host: "the washington post trumpline that turnover breaks records. jack in arizona, you are next. caller: first of all, thanks for taking my call. i would like to methodically make a few comments before i asked mr. whipple, your guest, a question. let's look at what he said about number 1 -- he has been there one year, meaning president trump.

mr. whipple went all negative on saying what his coupl accomplishments are -- getting rid of regulations and executive orders. it is great for all the people, which is about 35 states red on the map that i saw voted for him. going to thelican supreme court and also the executive orders that you said obama signed, they were all bad. he changed all the regulations and the economy is great. the stock market is the highest it has been. he got rid of isis. just all these other accomplishments. if you consider those negative a quarter -- according to obama, it's obvious that you like. you said somebody coming from the 26th floor. ,e've had that for years comparing 26th floor of

politicians. people don't want that. we want somebody to run this likery the very, very much it needs to be a business. otherwise, look at obama. put $10 trillion to the debt. host: i'm going to take your point. his evidence is the economy. guest: first of all, i don't disagree with you that donald trump has eliminated a lot of regulations and he has certainly got -- he is certainly change the judiciary and put a supreme court justice on the court. i'm not arguing with that. so i'm not sure what you mean by my going all negative. i'm not talking about donald trump ideology and whether i like it or not. he islking about how served by his white house chief of staff. if i were a donald trump voter,

i would be frustrated that he has not been able to get more done. obama was criticized by republicans and presumably by you for governing by executive order. that's really the only thing that trump has been able to do. he has not been able to pass legislation. the only bill that has gone through of any consequence was tax reform and only because he stayed 100 miles away from it. so legislatively, this white house has been the least accomplished in modern history. if you look at bill clinton's first term or even jimmy carter's first term, there's not even any comparison. they vastly outperformed this white house. if i were a trump supporter, i would be looking at the white house and i would be looking at the chief of staff and asking myself, why isn't he delivering more? host: chris whipple, you write

in this new chapter of your book based on interviews with rice priebus andreince steve bannon about the repeal and replace effort of the afford will care act -- affordable health care act. when john mccain voted no, what was steve bannon's reaction? guest: that's a good question. i don't specifically know what steve bannon's reaction was. i do know that bannon felt at that moment that it was probably the last row for reince priebus. that is what he told me. would argue priebus there was no way to really see mccain's thumbs down coming ahead of time and that that was a surprise. it was a kind of tipping point according to bannon for donald trump, losing his confidence in priebus. look, a white house chief of staff has to be able to deliver

on capitol hill. you have to be able to count votes. jim baker under ronald reagan had something called the legislative strategy group. he had a small group of really smart, savvy operators who could count votes and they never went out there unless they knew they could deliver. the trouble with this white house is that it has just been broken. one of the things it has not been able to do is count votes on capitol hill. host: neil and silver spring, maryland, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i like to guess the comment on the role of stephen miller in this. how does he relate to reince priebus? , how does he relate to general kelly? is he on the side of jared kushner and ivanka? how does that all play out?

host: chris whipple? guest: that's a very good question. frankly i'm not an expert on stephen miller and i did not talk extensively about him with priebus or with bannon for that matter. priebus is obviously a hard-line ideologues. -- donald trump seems to have a soft spot for him. he has been influential among the ideologues in this white house. i think that would put him really up against the more a trumpe faction of ivank and jared kushner and gary cohn, who is on his way out at this point. ishink that is where he among the factions in the white house, but i think he still has donald trump's respect. host: mike is in texas, republican.

caller: good morning. i want you to know that if 500 americans could name who rob porter was before that scandal broke, i will mow your lawn with hand clippers. we didn't even know who he was. guest: i'm sure you're right. caller: he is of no instrumental value. he might be a talented guy, but nobody knows who he was. regarding daca for example, it may not get solved, but the reason it won't get solved is that democrats do not want it to be solved. democrats require victims in order for them to win reelection. the dreamers are there to find victims. they are going to be victims of donald trump. that will be the way it's couched going into the election. it will not happen because democrats want let it happen. solving problems is not what democrats what to do -- want to do because they require the

voters to be dependent on democrats, dependent on them. dreamers would not be dependent on them if they get citizenship or the pathway to it. host: herger point. let me make a question out of his commentary, chris whipple. the president has said and , chucks before cameras nancy, referring to charles schumer and nancy plessy and pelosi inl -- nancy the oval office meeting, i can work with you. let's do this. where is the role of the chief of staff to make bipartisan deals and how important is that? guest: the role of the chief of staff is critical. it's absolutely essential. reagan were jim baker was able to call up tip o'neill and have him come over

and they would drink whiskey in the residence with ronald reagan and get stuff done. they would achieve compromises. some people may say that the is a lost art and it will never happen. i don't believe that. i'm more optimistic than that. i think it really capable white house chief can help the president govern. donald trump has not learned that there's a difference between campaigning and governing. he knows how to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to divide and demonize and disrupt. that is not governing. that is campaigning. john kelly has really doubled down on all those partisan and stings. -- partisan instincts. this is not "the art of the deal." almost everything this president touches turns to dust. it's not even clear what he's for and what he's against. if you listen to what he said

about gun control and about tariffs, there is no consistency. he says one thing one day in the opposite the next. it's the chief of staff's job to help the president figure out how to get beyond campaigning and getting real results. host: previous chiefs of staff have had to deal with family and roles as advisors to the president. if so, how? guest: it's never easy and it's always a delicate issue. i go back to james baker under reagan. you had nancy reagan, who was famously described as the "personnel director" and that white house. she had to sign off on every senior appointment. family,mike beaver, not but he was like a son to ronald reagan. they were very powerful in the reagan white house. james baker was politically savvy enough to realize that he

needed to form an alliance with them. when the hard right ideologues came after baker, who was considered the pragmatist, he prevailed because he had those alliances with nancy and others. it requires a deft political touch, which i don't think john kelly has. in fact, i don't there's anybody in the west link at this point -- west wing at this point with any real political savvy. host: virginia, democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of comments and a quick question. jack earlier said that the white house needs to be run like a business. mr. whipple you said earlier that general kelly was wishy-washy on issues. down on said he doubles all of trump's partisan instincts. i never said he was wishy-washy. caller: i believe you characterized him as saying one

thing and then another thing and then contradicting himself. guest: i don't think donald trump knows what he believes in. host: your point? caller: my question is with the pentagon. is there any comment on the audit of the fed that has been introduced as an amendment by senator paul? guest: i've no opinion on that. host: we will move on. kalamazoo, michigan, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. that he's busy knocking trump and i'm glad a lot of people have been knocking trump. if you think trump is bad, compare him to clinton. before clinton was in office six months, he had bombed baghdad, the capital of iraq. in 1998, december

16, i believe it is pretty after it was all over, there was no way of knowing that it happened. after that date, there were no inspections in iraq, never until bush got in and it took a while for bush to give in. here's the question. if clinton had forced saddam hussein to follow the cease-fire in kuwait, would bush ever have ,otten the vote from the senate from the house, from the un's to go to war in iraq? host: we believe that question out there for mr. whipple. guest: i'm not here to talk about bill clinton and saddam hussein. i will tell you since you are talking about the use of force -- i will tell you something both reince priebus and steve bannon told me in the new chapter of the paperback out now

, which you might find surprising. bannon whati asked would surprise me? tell me something i don't know about donald trump. bannon said to me that trump is the farthest thing from the mad bomber. he is a guy that you never met someone who is more judicious about the use of force. , butan believe that or not reince priebus told me the same thing, which i just found interesting. i think we are a long way from knowing the answer to that, but i just found it interesting that each of them mentioned that independently. host: you said that reince priebus was one of the more challenging interviews you have ever done. why is that? reince was extremely nervous and cautious. i think he still respects donald

trump and he still wishes him well. he did not want to say anything that would jeopardize trump's agenda. he did not want to say anything that would reflect badly on him. he was very cautious. we began off the record and frankly we had two long sessions that were completely off the record and then went through a painstaking process of getting things on the record. in that sense it was a very challenging process. host: does he still have a relationship with the president? do they talk? guest: they do. i think they talk pretty regularly. modernas a phone that is -- not monitored by john kelly. lewandowski, his former campaign manager, quite a lot. he calls priebus regularly for political advice. i do not think he has anybody in

the west link at the moment -- in the west wing at the moment with political savvy. he does not have a david axelrod, karl rove, or political strategist in the white house. i think you like to call people like priebus and get his advice. host: we will hear from john in wisconsin, independent. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: chris, i don't understand where you get your information from, but you are right on the head, ok? you know donald trump like i know donald trump. believe me, i have experienced working for state service for four years. -- 40 years. this guy is not going to accomplish anything because he does not have a clue on how it's done. it used to be that people who worked with state services moved up and then they went to the higher tier of government. today it's anybody.

it doesn't depend on what experience they have or don't have. you are right on the money. host: mr. whipple, what do you think? guest: let me just say that one of the things that is not just donald trump -- one of the things that i've learned in researching this book is that you know how in hollywood they say, nobody knows anything. in washington, nobody learns anything. donald trump is not the first president to come in to office thinking that he was the smartest guy in the room and had all the answers. it has taken him longer than most presidents to figure out, if you ever figures out, that you have to do certain things to be able to govern effectively. it has happened with some other presidents. it took jimmy carter 2.5 years to appoint a white house chief and really empower one to get anything done. it took bill clinton a year and a half to empower leon panetta

to advance his agenda. whop is not the only guy comes in thinking he can run the places where -- the place his way. the result has been the least accomplished white house in modern history so far. host: let's end with this quote from the peace in your book that is featured in an excerpt in "vanity fair." " trump is a man that fears nothing and no one and there's absolutely nothing he is intimidated by and that's very rare and politics. politics aren people who have sort of an approval addiction. now granted, president trump does, too, but healing to whether one storm after the next to get to an end result that most people are not willing to weather. he does not mind the craziness, the drama, or the difficulty, as long as an end goal is in sight. he will endure it." guest: the craziness in drama is

no way to get to the end result. the other day that reince priebus set on some network to try to look beyond the craziness and the turmoil look at the results. the trouble is craziness and drama rarely if ever gets you results. the wayhistory shows you get results is by empowering a white house chief to really exited your agenda. you have to be able to do more than just demonize and divide and disrupt. if your definition of governance is to be a human wrecking ball, then that is what we have got right now, but donald trump has failed to learn the lesson that ronald reagan learned, which is that you have to be able to govern and not just campaign. "gatekeepers: -- how the white house chief of staff defined every presi